Appeal No. 2002-1685 Page 5
Application No. 08/995,431
possess the characteristics of the claimed invention. See In re
Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985);
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
The specification discloses that the crab pot is comprised
of spring steel rods 36 connected by spring steel wire 33 and
plastic fishing line material 34. As the spring steel rods 36
are bound by the wire 33 and plastic fishing line material 34, a
tension is developed in the spring steel rods 36 (specification
at pages 6 to 7).
Lile discloses that the dome-like shaped compartments
are built up of substantially rigid wire framework having a
foraminous screen covering. Lile discloses nothing about spring
tension or the use of spring steel in the substantially rigid
wire framework. As such, in our view, the examiner’s reasoning
that Lile discloses a tensioning member producing a spring
tension in the rods is speculative in nature and can not support
a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Therefore, the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation by
inherency. As such, we will not sustain this rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007